From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 5 October, 1872. 1d.

AN IMPORTANT CASE

Oswald Puckridge was summoned to answer a charge laid by Supt. Parker, that he, being a licensed publican, keeping a house called the "Railway Inn," situate in the parish of Deal, did, on Sunday the 29th of September, open his house for the sale of intoxicating liquors before the hour of half-past 12, viz., at a quarter to 12.

Mr. Hall appeared for the defendant.

P.C. Seath said: I was on duty on Sunday morning last near the "Railway Inn," about a quarter to 12 at noon. The train arrived, and the defendant opened his doors for passengers to come in. He stood at his door, but let no one in except those who had a ticket from the railway. I saw them all show their tickets, and those who did not have a ticket he did not let in. He opened the door before any passengers presented themselves at his house - got up to it, I mean. I saw several go in who had tickets, but I saw no one go in who had not got a ticket. I saw that the tickets were railway tickets - half tickets. I know it was not half past 12, but a quarter to 12, because my watch indicated that hour, and it was right by St. George's Church. The persons who went in there were all strangers. One marine was refused admission because he had no ticket, but had only been to the train to meet his mother.

Cross-examination by Mr. Hall: The defendant opened half a door - the door is a folding one. He did not have the door-handle in his hand. He stood in such a position that he could see people coming. the train arrived a few minutes before a quarter to 12. He opened the door as passengers came across the road towards his house - whilst they were coming through the railway gates. The road is about 25 feet wide. It was quite possible for defendant to see out of his window the passengers coming. I know the driver of a train blows a whistle on approaching the station. I heard it that day. Mr. Puckridge has no private door to his house, that I know of. I did not see anyone supplied with drink who was not a traveller. I only saw the travellers go in.

This being the whole of the evidence, Mr. Hall submitted that there was no case against Mr. Puckridge for supplying refreshment to persons who were not travellers.

Mr. Mercer (the Clerk) pointed out that Mr. Puckridge was not summoned for serving persons who were not travellers, but for having his house open for the sale of intoxicating liquors. The Act said that publicans should be punished for three things - for selling during prohibited hours, for having his house open for the sale, and also for allowing drink to be consumed.

Mr. Hall then contended that a publican had a perfect right to open his door if he chose, and that to constitute an offence there must be an actual sale. In the present case only travellers had been served, and they could demand to be so served. In support of his view Mr. Hall cited two cases from one of the superior Courts.

Upon Mr. Mercer examining the cases, however, he was of opinion that they bore more upon the question of what made a bona fide traveller. There was no charge of illegal serving in this case; but the question simply was whether the defendant was justified in opening his house before being requested to do so by a traveller.

Mr. Hall reiterated his opinion that he was; and further stated that it was quite clear Mr. Puckridge had no intension of breaking the law, as he very properly required the production of the railway ticket before he would serve anyone, and he would call two witnesses who were refused. Mr. Puckridge expected some friends by the train, and they did arrive, and he (Mr. Hall) continued that he was perfectly at liberty to open his doors and stand upon his doorstep while waiting for them.

Mr. J. Kidder, of Northbourne, was called by Mr. Hall and deposed that he came to Deal on the Sunday morning in question to meet a friend from London. He walked very fast and when he got to deal he required some refreshment and applied to Mr. Puckridge, but he declined to serve him as he was not a traveller, although witness told him he considered himself as such. Afterwards he met his friend and they took a walk round the town, and passed Mr. Puckridge's on their way home about a quarter to twelve, just as the other train arrived. His friend asked him to go and have a glass of something to drink, but he said it was no good for him to go in, as the landlord had refused him previously. His friend, however, went, and after showing his ticket was served. Witness distinctly heard Mr. Puckridge ask all the persons who wanted to be served to produce their tickets, and he did so.

Some further conversation took place between the learned legal gentleman and the Magistrates, the latter seeming to be of the opinion that the defendant ought not to have opened his house until a traveller applied for refreshment. After some time the public were re-admitted and the Mayor said the Magistrates, considered the present a very important case and that a very nice point of law had been raised, had decided to reserve their decision till next week.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 12 October, 1872. 1d.

THE ADJOURNED PUBLIC-HOUSE CASE

It will be remembered that last week Mr. Puckridge, the landlord of the "Railway Inn," was summoned for opening his house during prohibited hours on Sunday, the 29th of September, and that the Magistrates reserved their decision till to-day. The defendant was accordingly now present, and after the Court was opened the Magistrates requested Mr. Mercer, the Clerk, to read their decision.

Mr. Mercer then read the judgement, which was as follows:- "The case of the Superintendent of Police v. Puckridge, heard before us on Thursday last, was adjourned until this day for our decision. The offence charged in the information is that the defendant opened his house (the "Railway Inn") for sale of intoxicating liquors at a quarter to twelve on Sunday, the 29th September, contrary to the Licensing Act. The facts proved before us, and which are not in dispute, were very simple. On the arrival of the train about a quarter to twelve the defendant, whose house is immediately opposite the railway gates, opened his doors and came outside as the passengers by the train were coming out of the gates. Some of them went across the road to the defendant, and those who were strangers, on showing their return railway ticket, were admitted; others were refused admittance. There was no proof that any intoxicating liquors had been sold. On the part of the defendant it was therefore urged that on the facts proved there was no offence under the Act, on two grounds. 1. That the words of the Statute, 'opening for the sale of intoxicating liquors' required proof of the sale of intoxicating liquors in addition to the opening; and 2ndly, That the landlord of a licensed house was justified in opening for the reception of travellers; that the persons admitted in this case were travellers; that the mode of opening was justified by the circumstances. Several cases in the superior courts were referred to in support of the above defence. As it appeared to us a question of importance, involving the construction of the recent Statute and effecting a variety of interest, we thought it advisable to reserve our decision, so that we might have the opportunity of examining into the law, which was more especially necessary, as in this case no legal adviser appeared to support the complaint. We have now, with the assistance of our own legal adviser, very carefully examined the seven cases cited, and have given the best consideration in our power to the construction of the recent Act, and to the grounds of defence, and we have arrived at the following conclusion. We are of opinion that the first ground of defence altogether fails. We think it is not necessary when a licensed person is charged with opening his house for the sale of intoxicating liquors during prohibited hours, that an actual sale as well as opening should be proved. We construe the words 'opening for the sale' as meaning opening for the purpose of doing business, though in fact no business may be actually done. The Act provides for the selling as a separate offence. When a licensed house is open during prohibited hours it is to be considered prima facie as having for its object trade, and the onus of providing the contrary must be on the victualler. On this point we are unanimous. On the second ground we are not quite unanimous. We all consider that the defendant had a right to sell to travellers, and that if the door had been opened on the application of the passengers in question (who were travellers) that the landlord would have been warranted in opening his door and supplying them; but some of doubt whether the defendant had a right to open previous to an application. A majority of us, however, are of opinion that under the circumstances proved in the case before us, there was not a contravention of the Act by the defendant as would justify a conviction. The Statute is a highly penal one, and although we are determined strictly to enforce its provisions where they are clearly infringed, yet we do not consider we ought unduly to strain much provision, and it appears to us that the Judges by whose decision we are bound to abide have uniformly adopted this principle in dealing with cases of this sort. We, therefore, decide that under the circumstances of this case the information must be dismissed. We would observe that every case must depend upon the circumstances attending it, and that what would be justifiable in one case might not be so in another. In this case, therefore, it must be clearly understood that we are governed solely by the special circumstances as brought before us."

Mr. Puckridge thanked the Bench, and said there was a question he wished to ask. Could he supply refreshments to residents of Deal returning home by the last train on Sunday nights? The active Superintendent had contradicted him upon the subject, and he wished to have the Magistrates' opinion.

The Magistrates declined to give any opinion upon the matter - every case must stand upon its own merits.

The Clerk was making some observations to the Bench upon the question just asked, when Mr. Thos. Mowle came into Court and was about to address him, but was stopped by the officer. Afterwards Mr. Mowle said, "Oh, Mr. Mercer, where is Mrs. Davenport; where is her parish?" Mr. Mercer, who was amused at the strange abruptness and vagueness of the question, said he was sure he could not tell - he must first know who Mrs. Davenport was; whereupon Mr. Mowle suddenly left the Court in a tiff - turned and went away in a rage, as the Clerk phrased it.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 4 January, 1873. 1d.

PUBLICANS' APPLICATION

Upon the application of Mr. Puckridge, the landlord of the "Railway Inn," Queen Street, the Magistrates gave permission to remain open till 1 o'clock o the following (Friday) morning.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 20 March, 1875. 1d.

EXTENSION

Mr. Osmond Beer, landlord of the "Railway Inn," obtained permission to keep his premises open till twelve o'clock on Thursday next, on the occasion of a private supper.

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 24 February, 1900. 1d

AN EXPENSIVE "CHANGE" AT DEAL

Charles Pallatt and Henry Bastin, belonging to Dover, were summoned for creating a disturbance on licensed premises, and refusing to quit the "Railway Hotel," Deal, on the 31st Jan.; they were further charged with maliciously breaking a plate glass panel, doing damage to the amount of £2, at the same time and place.

Defendant pleaded not guilty to both charges.

Dr. Hardman prosecuted on behalf of the Licensed Victualler's Trade Protection Association, and Mr. E. Bruce Payne defended.

Dr. Hardman said that the two defendants came into the "Railway Hotel" at about twenty minutes to eleven on the night of the 31st Jan., and called for two glasses of whisky. The landlord was about to serve them, when they commenced using abusive language and making themselves unpleasant, and he then saw that they were under the influence of drink, and decided that he was not justified in serving them, under the circumstances, and requested them to quit the house. They made a further disturbance, refusing to go, and he went forward and opened the door, and eventually succeeded in putting them outside and closing the door. He came away, and an appreciable interval of time followed before the plate-glass panel of the door was struck, the glass falling inside. It might be said that the panel was accidentally destroyed in the struggle, and he (Dr. Hardman) mentioned the fact that the landlord retired at the bar, and that a short interval of time elapsed, and the landlord was away in another part of the bar, when the panel was smashed, in order to show the Bench it was not by something done in the course of ejecting the defendants, but something that was done afterwards by way of revenge. the fact that the glass fell inside into the bar would also show that it was broken from outside, and only these two men were outside the door at the time. if any further evidence were required it might be obtained in this way - that they refused to give their names and addresses at the station when the police were called, and at the same time they offered to pay half the damages that was done, and subsequently the whole, and it was possible that if they had done this the court would never have been troubled with the matter. But the damage extended to £2, and probably more, and it was a serious matter, while the other offence of  refusing to quit also seemed to be complete.

Stephen George Hood said he was the landlord of the "Railway Hotel," near the Station. About twenty minutes to eleven on the 31st Jan., the two defendants came into his house and asked for two glasses of Whisky. He was going to serve them, and had turned his back, when they began to use such abusive language that he came to the conclusion that they were under the influence of drink. The language was addresses to him. He did not know the reason, unless it was that he was rather long in serving them. his wife was having her supper, but could hear the disturbance. He (prosecutor) refused to serve them, and told them there was the door, and to get out. They continued the language, and he walked round the counter and opened the door and told them again to go. They would not go, and he pushed them out and closed the door, latching it. he was just going behind the bar again, when he heard a smash, and on looking round saw that the engraved plate-glass panel was broken, the pieces falling inside the door. He ran and opened the door, and the two defendants were walking away towards the station. There was no one else to be seen in the road. They were about five to ten yards away from the door. He followed them to the station, and found them in the refreshment room. In the presence of the police they accused prosecutor of putting his foot through the glass. The next night they called and asked him to meet them half way, and he replied that he would not meet them a quarter of the way. They asked what the cost would be, and he told them from 40s. to 50s., the amount of the estimate; they said it was too much, and that they could get a man from Dover to do it cheaper.

By Mr. Payne: he did not say that he would take 10s. to clear the matter. He did not tell them at first he thought it would cost £1 to replace the panel.

Charles John Meares, ticket collector, also gave evidence.

Mr. Payne contended that there was no disorderly conduct. prosecutor took a long while to draw the cork of a bottle of whisky, and after complaining, as they had to leave the town by train, and had no time to spare, they left without their drinks. When they got outside, prosecutor followed them, and caught Bastin, who had only one leg, and could not walk fast, by the throat, and in the scuffle the window was broken. he should prove that the prosecutor must have broken it himself in the scuffle. As to the disorderly conduct, there was no case, and as to the broken window, there was no evidence against the clients that they did it.

Henry Bastin said they lived in Dover, and had been to Sandwich, on the way back, to change at Deal, and wait for the next train. They had been to a regalia meeting, to see a brother raised to a degree. About seven of them entered the "Eagle," and had a drink there, leaving in about twenty minutes. When they came out his friend found that he had nothing to smoke. They went into the "Railway Hotel," and he remarked, "It looks bad; we will have a drink," and called for two glasses of whisky, and the landlord went down on his knees, he should think, to draw it. He told the landlord to be quick, as the train was due, and he took no notice. He (defendant) said he could not stop, and hailed his friend to "come on," walked out, and was in the station yard, some thirty yards away, when the landlord came out and caught him by the throat. The landlord returned, and then he heard the glass smash. next day the landlord came to Dover to see about it, and he (defendant) thought he had better come over to Deal and see what could be done. The landlord accused him of kicking his hand, which was bandaged, and when he saw it uncovered, there were cuts of glass. he believed the landlord had been hanging back in issuing the summons, so that the cuts would heal. He (defendant) was not the worse for drink.

Mr. Payne: You only had the ordinary average of "spots" there.

Defendant: What I had there was two glasses. We had not much time. It was nine o'clock when we got to the Lodge, and we had to catch the train for Sandwich at 10.1.

Mr. Payne: During the evening you had a regalia meeting. What do you reckon you took there?

Defendant: Three glasses of ale.

And then you come to deal and have a "spot" at one house, and try to get one at another?

Yes, but cannot get it.

You are afraid you will lose your train?

Yes.

Did you make use of bad language?

Not at all. I simply said, "Hurry up, guv'nor, or I shall lose my train, and he swore at me.

By Dr. Hardman: It was after he saw the landlord running back into the house that he heard the smash. The landlord simply ran after him because he had left the drink and could not wait. he was walking towards the station when he heard the smash. before that the landlord had seized his throat.

Dr. Hardman: You say you had been to a Lodge at Sandwich, and had had three glasses of ale there?

Yes.

And it might have been more?

No.

Or less?

No.

And then you came and had something at the "Eagle?"

Yes.

And then you came to the "Railway" for some more?

Well, it was only for accommodation to get the "smoke," we were going to have a "wet."

merely for the good of the house, was it?

No.

What is the meaning of the word "spot?"

I don't know anything about spots.

I thought it was some technical word?

Not that I know of.

Mr. Payne: It is a term for "drink." It sounds better, you know.

Further cross-examining, defendant said he did not offer anything. his friend offered a sovereign. He did that to try and settle it without coming to Court, not because he had done the damage.

Chas. Pellatt also gave evidence, and in reply to Dr. Hardman, said he neither broke the window, not saw it broken. He offered a sovereign the next night to save it coming into Court. he was not the worse for drink. He had only had one glass at the "Eagle," and one at Sandwich. The landlord did not ask them to leave. They had not even ten minutes from the time they went in till they had to catch the train. They did not use any bad language, or call the landlord over; he abused them, and that was all the trouble. he believed the landlord was annoyed because they could not wait to have the liquor they had called for. That was the only reason that brought the landlord from behind the door towards the bar. He (defendant) followed immediately after Bastin, and the landlord passed him. He asked the landlord what he meant, and with that the landlord ran away, and went into his house, and banged the door, and the glass fell out. He (defendant) did not follow.

(Missing text to re-find at a later date. Paul Skelton.)

From the Deal, Walmer, and Sandwich Mercury, 14 February, 1920.

THE RAILWAY HOTEL

Dr. Hardman applied for the renewal of the license of the "Railway Hotel," on behalf of Mrs. Elliott (formerly Mrs. Webb), present licensee, who on the 10th July was fined £3 for permitting consumption of intoxicating liquors on the premises during prohibited hours. Dr. Hardman quoted the remarks of the Chairman of the Bench on that occasion (Ald. Hayward) with regard to the effect of the conviction on the license, and went on to say that the landlady was entertaining a few private friends, which would have been a perfectly legitimate thing except for the extraordinary regulations occasioned by the war. She was a widow then, and was not well versed in her duties as perhaps a man might have been. She had since married a highly respectable pensioner from the Royal Marines, and the house had been conducted without and complaint since the conviction. He trusted in the circumstances the license would be renewed. Mrs. Elliott expressed through him, her regret at the oversight which caused the trouble and gave her assurance that she would endeavour to conduct the house to the satisfaction of the police and the Bench.

Inspr. Russell gave evidence of the conviction, and said the house had since been conducted in a very satisfactory manner.

After consulting in private the Mayor said the Bench had decided to grant the renewal of the license, but they wished very strongly to remark that such things must not occur again as serving drinks in prohibited hours. The license was renewed owing to the way in which the house had been conducted since the conviction, but it must be understood that the Bench might not do so in any similar case again.